Supreme Court snubs Alabama jury impartiality case

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned judges to try to avoid proceedings that might frighten or intimidate a jury, after prospective jurors in an Alabama murder case watched a potential juror be arrested for running late.WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a case over juror impartiality.Alabama resident Steven Richard Mulkey was convicted and sentenced to death after the 2018 killing of two elderly motel owners who hired him to do landscaping work. During jury selection, the trial judge ordered a potential juror arrested and held in contempt of court for running late, and potential jurors voiced concerns that they, too, would get in trouble if they gave answers that weren’t in alignment with the judge.After the judge asked one prospective juror about her unwillingness to recommend the death penalty, she asked “Will I be charged or thrown in jail?”Another juror told the judge “I don’t want to get in trouble for my beliefs,” after being questioned.The jury found Mulkey guilty on one count of capital murder for killing two or more people during one act and unanimously recommended the death penalty. The court’s “extreme action” didn’t ensure a fair and impartial jury, Mulkey argued in his petition to the Supreme Court.Mulkey didn’t raise any objections or concerns during voir dire, Alabama argued, and only raised the concern on appeal to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. His due process rights were not violated, the state said, the jury pool was not tainted, and the court didn’t make an error.While the high court declined to hear Mulkey’s case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a Barack Obama nominee, added in a two-page statement that she agrees that the court is limited from taking up the case because there is no plain error but said the right to an impartial jury is “fundamental” to the justice system.“The record here amply demonstrates how a judge’s conduct can have a profoundly negative impact on members of the jury pool,” she wrote. “Such conduct may affect not only what potential jurors are willing to say in front of the judge, but also whether they will apply their independent judgment instead of following what they perceive the judge may personally think.”Two potential jurors that were questioned individually expressed fear about sharing their views on the case, Sotomayor added, and although the judge assured them they would not be punished, they were told this one-on-one rather than with the jury pool.“It is unknown how many other potential jurors felt similarly but did not share their fear because they were not called for individual questioning,” she wrote. “I write, however, to highlight that this case provides an example of why judges should restrain themselves from conducting any proceedings that are collateral to the trial in front of a jury.”Judges should take care to avoid exposing a jury to collateral proceedings, “particularly when those proceedings might frighten or intimidate the jury,” she added.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads